3 ms·

I mean, these are related. If Tesla cars aren't safe for the people inside, people won't buy them. If they're not safe for others, lawsuits will follow. Bad

I mean, these are related. If Tesla cars aren't safe for the people inside, people won't buy them. If they're not safe for others, lawsuits will follow. Bad for these are bad for shareholders too. But certain people will ignore this to their own detriment, and I expect Ellison to be one of them.

darkpuma 8y ago
That's assuming car buyers are rational actors, and assuming the courts are fair. I think both are poor assumptions. What if the car itself isn't faulty if operated according to the fine print, but the marketing material for the car suggests to drivers the car has capabilities that exceed reality? Could Tesla theoretically be sued into compliance? Sure, maybe. But would it actually happen? Would Tesla defend their reputation by correcting their marketing material, or would Tesla defend their reputation for blaming the drivers? And of course as you mention there is the possibility that Ellison is irrational.
- Sniffnoy 8y ago
  I'm not sure how much the fine print matters if it fails basic fit-for-purpose standards. Regarding irrationality -- see e.g. this[0] Shamus Young post about the video game industry. IMO, this general sort of irrationality is everywhere. Businesses in general tend to be irrational because they're run by suits, whose primary motivation is not actually accumulating money for the business but rather prestige for themselves, which you get by doing business-y things, regardless of whether those actually make money. For all his reputed greed, that's how I actually expect Larry Ellison to act. [0] https://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=41924 https://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=41924
justinclift 8y ago
> If Tesla cars aren't safe for the people inside, people won't buy them. The theory is good, but in practise it doesn't always work out that way. As an example, take IBM. In IT circles they're very well known - for ~10+ years now - as an incompetent organisation, with an aggressive sales force targeting high level (non-technical) execs. Their only real interest in being scoring short term sales wins, but their ability to deliver results for any useful length of time rarely lines up. In theory, IBM should be having trouble closing sales these days. That's the equivalent of "If Tesla cars aren't safe for the people inside, people won't buy them". However, that doesn't seem to be the case. And with IBM, when things go badly wrong (very common), IBM just breaks out the lawyers and attempts to shift blame. eg "it's the customers fault / hackers did it / competitor did it" (etc) Telsla could unfortunately drive down the same dark road (for their customers). Having Ellison anywhere involved is really not a good sign. :(
- Sniffnoy 8y ago
  That argument seems to rely on the existence of a principal-agent problem that isn't present in the case of consumers buying cars, though.

darkpuma 8y ago

That's assuming car buyers are rational actors, and assuming the courts are fair. I think both are poor assumptions. What if the car itself isn't faulty if operated according to the fine print, but the marketing material for the car suggests to drivers the car has capabilities that exceed reality? Could Tesla theoretically be sued into compliance? Sure, maybe. But would it actually happen? Would Tesla defend their reputation by correcting their marketing material, or would Tesla defend their reputation for blaming the drivers? And of course as you mention there is the possibility that Ellison is irrational.

Sniffnoy 8y ago
I'm not sure how much the fine print matters if it fails basic fit-for-purpose standards. Regarding irrationality -- see e.g. this[0] Shamus Young post about the video game industry. IMO, this general sort of irrationality is everywhere. Businesses in general tend to be irrational because they're run by suits, whose primary motivation is not actually accumulating money for the business but rather prestige for themselves, which you get by doing business-y things, regardless of whether those actually make money. For all his reputed greed, that's how I actually expect Larry Ellison to act. [0] https://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=41924 https://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=41924

justinclift 8y ago

> If Tesla cars aren't safe for the people inside, people won't buy them. The theory is good, but in practise it doesn't always work out that way. As an example, take IBM. In IT circles they're very well known - for ~10+ years now - as an incompetent organisation, with an aggressive sales force targeting high level (non-technical) execs. Their only real interest in being scoring short term sales wins, but their ability to deliver results for any useful length of time rarely lines up. In theory, IBM should be having trouble closing sales these days. That's the equivalent of "If Tesla cars aren't safe for the people inside, people won't buy them". However, that doesn't seem to be the case. And with IBM, when things go badly wrong (very common), IBM just breaks out the lawyers and attempts to shift blame. eg "it's the customers fault / hackers did it / competitor did it" (etc) Telsla could unfortunately drive down the same dark road (for their customers). Having Ellison anywhere involved is really not a good sign. :(

Sniffnoy 8y ago
That argument seems to rely on the existence of a principal-agent problem that isn't present in the case of consumers buying cars, though.